Repository | Journal | Volume | Articles
(1990) Synthese 83 (1).
In this paper we argue that the insistence by Fodor et. al. that the Language of Thought hypothesis must be true rests on mistakes about the kinds of explanations that must be provided of cognitive phenomena. After examining the canonical arguments for the LOT, we identify a weak version of the LOT hypothesis which we think accounts for some of the intuitions that there must be a LOT.
Publication details
DOI: 10.1007/BF00413686
Full citation:
Braddon-Mitchell, D. , Fitzpatrick, J. (1990). Explanation and the language of thought. Synthese 83 (1), pp. 3-29.
This document is unfortunately not available for download at the moment.